The GEOFOR editorial team asked Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy (USA), Doctor of Economics and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, to assess the progress of the negotiations between Russia and the United States, as well as their prospects.
– Despite numerous statements that the US-Russian talks are progressing well, and Moscow has even sent its ambassador to Washington, there is a sense that there has been little progress on the Ukrainian issue. At least, based on the actions and statements of the Ukrainian side and the way the Europeans continue and even try to increase their military supplies to Kyiv. Is this true? And how do you see the prospects for a Ukrainian settlement?
The chances of ending the conflict would have been much higher if President Putin had been in control of the process from the very beginning. Instead, however, he has been playing a vague game – without a clear plan and without a clear goal. As a result, extraneous, distracting topics began to creep into the negotiations. Take, for example, President Trump’s demand: Ukraine must pay for the American aid of the Biden era with rare earth metals. What does this have to do with the settlement? But now this is being discussed at Trump’s meetings with Zelenskyy. The question arises: what will come next? What other topic will divert attention from the main one?
According to a CIA admission recently published in the New York Times, the conflict in Ukraine has been a war between the United States and Russia from the very beginning – a war started and directed by Washington. Ukraine is only a source of cannon fodder in this story. From the very beginning, the United States sought to provoke a clash with Russia by overthrowing the legitimately elected government in Kyiv and installing a controlled regime in its place. While President Putin tried to avoid a head-on conflict over the Minsk agreements, the US was training and arming a large Ukrainian army. And when the Biden regime, NATO and the European Union ignored Putin and Lavrov’s calls for mutual security guarantees, and the Ukrainian army was preparing to enter Donbas and crush the two independent republics, Putin – unprepared – had no choice but to intervene.
If the conflict was between Washington and Moscow from the very beginning, what does Zelenskyy have to do with it? Moreover, why do we need negotiations at all? President Putin’s task is to win a military victory and dictate the terms of peace to the losing side, not to risk losing this victory at the negotiating table. Why is Zelenskyy involved in the peace process at all if his presidential term ended several months ago? How can the signing of an agreement by Trump and Putin with a man who, according to the Ukrainian constitution, has no authority to represent the country be taken seriously?
Statements that “the negotiations are going well” are completely absurd. What kind of success is it if President Trump threatens Putin with new punitive measures, despite the fact that it is Putin who is complying with Trump’s agreements? And who is violating them – Zelenskyy? NATO? Washington? How do Trump’s attacks on Putin contribute to the trust without which any negotiations are impossible?
They do not. So the question arises: Is Trump serious about ending the war, or does he just like to play the role of a tough guy on the world stage?
The problem with ending the conflict is the way Putin himself is conducting it. It looks like he is afraid of winning. To avoid a final victory, he paid a heavy price – the lives of Russian soldiers. The war was waged as if its main goal was not to defeat the enemy, but to enter into negotiations. Instead of a military victory, Putin is apparently seeking some kind of “grand bargain”, a new Yalta format. In my opinion, this explains his approach: he sees the war as a tool for concluding a broader deal with the West.
The consequences of this long war are clear: It took Putin months to push Ukrainian forces out of a few kilometres of Russian territory, while Stalin’s Red Army took the same amount of time to push the Wehrmacht back thousands of kilometres, liberate Eastern Europe and enter Berlin. And in the case of Ukraine, part of the Russian land still remains under the control of either Kyiv or Washington.
To the rest of the world, the way Putin is conducting this war looks like a defeat for the Russian army, and that is how the Western media has been presenting the situation since the beginning of the conflict. If Trump also sees it that way, it sends a very bad signal for the Ukrainian negotiations. In this case, he will believe that he is dealing with a weak opponent who is unable to win the war. And if that’s the case, why make concessions? Why not make even more demands? After all, Trump is fighting a deadly battle with the American establishment. And a victory over Putin could significantly strengthen his position in the internal confrontation.
If Trump really wants to end the war in Ukraine, he only needs to take one step. He simply needs to say that this war would not have happened if the Democrats had not stolen his victory in the 2020 elections; he is not personally interested in the conflict and is withdrawing America from it. This leaves Zelenskyy alone with Putin to deal with the issue directly. If Putin had won a quick victory from the start, there would have been no “issue”.
– In addition to the Ukrainian settlement, the agenda of the Russian-American dialogue includes issues related to the normalisation of relations and the increase of mutual trust. Against this backdrop, how do you view the visit to Washington of the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, who, during ten hours of talks at the White House with top officials, discussed a wide range of issues, from joint development of Russian rare earth metal deposits to the resumption of air travel between our countries? To what extent, in your opinion, is a constructive dialogue in these areas possible, especially if the talks on Ukraine reach a deadlock?
If Kirill Dmitriev is an advocate of integration with the West and is still fascinated by the Atlantic, he will be stripped to the bone. Wall Street is eager to get back at Russia and its assets. The exploitation of Russian resources will ensure a comfortable life for American financiers for decades to come. In my opinion, talk of opening access to such resources is a premature and extremely dangerous step. At this stage, Russia has no reason to make such concessions. It would be an act of national suicide.
– Traditionally, I cannot help but ask about domestic issues in American politics. The Republican advantage is now quite small, and, judging by media reports and experts, there is also no unanimity within the party itself regarding the foreign policy course of the new administration. To what extent do these factors prevent Trump from implementing his plans? And does the president have the ability to overcome them?
In my recent publications on www.paulcraigroberts.org, I explain why the Trump team is not aware of all the forces at work in the modern world. This ignorance seriously hinders his actions. But not only that: among other things, the majority of Republicans in the House and Senate simply do not support him. The Republican establishment – the so-called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) – has settled perfectly within the existing American system. Their re-election is ensured by generous donations from the Israeli lobby, from the military-industrial complex, which always needs an enemy, from pharmaceutical giants, agribusiness, financial and energy corporations. Today, America is not ruled by voters, but by powerful private interests. Elections are won not by those who are voted for, but by those whose campaigns are financed.
RINOs – “Republicans in Name Only” – will support Trump to the extent that it suits their interests. After all, the main benefit of being in power is control over congressional committees and subcommittees, as well as access to privileges that are given for servility to the American establishment.
President Trump is up against an institutionalised system that is experienced in political warfare and accustomed to running the country. And for Americans themselves, it is this internal struggle that matters, not wars with Iran in the interests of Israel or conflicts over Ukraine. But if Trump fails to win on the domestic front, he will have to look abroad. This means that Russia, Iran and China remain potential targets.